1:06:03
you could bring your families in.
1:06:06
Your Honour, the jury
was expecting a human drama.
1:06:09
For three months
they've had lessons in geology.
1:06:12
We had to do that.
Now it's over - finally.
1:06:15
Now we have to see where we are
before moving on,
1:06:19
and subjecting these families
to more trauma than necessary,
1:06:23
because that would just be cruel.
1:06:25
- They want to testify.
- The decision is made.
1:06:28
- It's the defendant's plan.
- It's my plan.
1:06:31
Right from the beginning,
he threatened...
1:06:34
It's MY plan!
1:06:44
Now...
1:06:46
my plan is to present the jury
with some simple questions.
1:06:53
How you answer
these three questions,
1:06:56
will determine whether
this trial continues.
1:07:00
I don't disagree -
I don't understand them.
1:07:03
What don't you understand?
They're straightforward questions.
1:07:05
Have the plaintiffs established,
by preponderance of evidence,
1:07:09
that chemicals containing TCE
were disposed of on these lands
1:07:14
after October 1 , 1964
and August 27, 1968, respectively,
1:07:20
and did those chemicals contribute
to the well water contamination?
1:07:24
What were these dates?
Where are they from? Out of a hat?
1:07:28
Question two.
1:07:30
What, according to
a preponderance of the evidence,
1:07:33
was the earliest time
at which these chemicals
1:07:37
substantially contributed
to the wells' contamination?
1:07:40
How can they determine that?
1:07:42
Science can't even determine
when the chemicals arrived
1:07:45
with the precision
that you're asking of the jurors.
1:07:49
And finally, three.
1:07:50
What, according to
a preponderance of the evidence,
1:07:53
was the earliest time -
again, month and year -
1:07:56
at which substantial contribution
referred to in question two
1:07:59
was caused, if it was,